SAMEER​ ​OVERSEAS​ ​PLACEMENT​ ​AGENCY,​ ​INC​ ​v.​ ​JOY​ ​C.

​ ​CABILES
G.R.​ ​No.​ ​170139,​ ​August​ ​5,​ ​2014

Doctrine:
SEPARATION​ ​OF​ ​POWERS​ ​AND​ ​CHECKS​ ​AND​ ​BALANCES

Facts:
● Petitioner,​ ​Sameer​ ​Overseas​ ​Placement,​ ​Inc.​ ​(Sameer),​ ​is​ ​a​ ​recruitment​ ​and​ ​placement
agency.
● Respondent,​ ​Joy​ ​C.​ ​Cabiles​ ​(Cabiles),​ ​responded​ ​to​ ​the​ ​ad​ ​published​ ​by​ ​Sameer​ ​and
submitted​ ​her​ ​application​ ​for​ ​a​ ​quality​ ​control​ ​job​ ​in​ ​Taiwan.
● Cabiles​ ​was​ ​accepted​ ​for​ ​a​ ​year​ ​long​ ​employment​ ​contract​ ​with​ ​a​ ​salary​ ​of​ ​NTD​ ​15,360.
● Cabiles​ ​signed​ ​the​ ​employment​ ​contract​ ​but​ ​adds​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​allegedly​ ​made​ ​to​ ​pay
Php​ ​70,000​ ​as​ ​a​ ​placement​ ​fee.
● On​ ​June​ ​26,​ ​1997,​ ​Cabiles​ ​was​ ​finally​ ​deployed​ ​to​ ​work​ ​for​ ​Taiwan​ ​Wacoal,​ ​Co.​ ​Ltd.
(Wacoal)
● On​ ​her​ ​employment​ ​contract,​ ​Cabiles​ ​agreed​ ​to​ ​work​ ​as​ ​quality​ ​control,​ ​however,​ ​she
was​ ​made​ ​to​ ​work​ ​as​ ​a​ ​cutter​ ​in​ ​Taiwan.
● On​ ​July​ ​14,​ ​1997,​ ​Mr.​ ​Huwang​ ​from​ ​Wacoal​ ​informed​ ​Cabiles​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​to​ ​be
terminated,​ ​without​ ​any​ ​prior​ ​notice​ ​or​ ​warning.
● Cabiles​ ​claimed​ ​that​ ​from​ ​the​ ​time​ ​she​ ​started​ ​working,​ ​to​ ​the​ ​time​ ​she​ ​was​ ​terminated,
she​ ​only​ ​earned​ ​NTD​ ​9,000,​ ​and​ ​Wacoal​ ​also​ ​made​ ​her​ ​pay​ ​her​ ​repatriation​ ​fee​ ​(ticket
back​ ​to​ ​Manila)​ ​which​ ​deducted​ ​NTD​ ​3,000​ ​from​ ​the​ ​NTD​ ​9,000​ ​she​ ​was​ ​paid.
● Cabiles​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​case​ ​of​ ​illegal​ ​dismissal​ ​with​ ​the​ ​NLRC,​ ​she​ ​won,​ ​NLRC​ ​reiterating​ ​the
doctrine​ ​doctrine​ ​that​ ​the​ ​burden​ ​of​ ​proof​ ​to​ ​show​ ​that​ ​the​ ​dismissal​ ​was​ ​based​ ​on​ ​a​ ​just
or​ ​valid​ ​cause​ ​belongs​ ​to​ ​the​ ​employer,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​Sameer​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​that​ ​there​ ​were
just​ ​causes​ ​for​ ​the​ ​termination.
● Sameer​ ​filed​ ​for​ ​certiorari​ ​with​ ​the​ ​CA
● Respondent​ ​argued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​CA​ ​that​ ​the​ ​clause​ ​"or​ ​for​ ​three​ ​(3)​ ​months​ ​for​ ​every​ ​year​ ​of
the​ ​unexpired​ ​term,​ ​whichever​ ​is​ ​less”​ ​of​ ​Republic​ ​Act​ ​No.​ ​10022​ ​violates​ ​the
constitutional​ ​right​ ​to​ ​due​ ​process.
● CA​ ​affirmed​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​the​ ​NLRC.
Issue/s:
Whether​ ​or​ ​not​ ​the​ ​last​ ​clause​ ​of​ ​RA​ ​10022​ ​violates​ ​the​ ​constitutional​ ​right​ ​to​ ​due
process
Provision/s:
Art.​ ​282.​ ​Termination​ ​by​ ​employer.​ ​An​ ​employer​ ​may​ ​terminate​ ​an​ ​employment​ ​for​ ​any
of​ ​the​ ​following​ ​causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer​ ​or​ ​representative​ ​in​ ​connection​ ​with​ ​his​ ​work;
(b)​ ​Gross​ ​and​ ​habitual​ ​neglect​ ​by​ ​the​ ​employee​ ​of​ ​his​ ​duties;​
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized​ ​representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or
any​ ​immediate​ ​member​ ​of​ ​his​ ​family​ ​or​ ​his​ ​duly​ ​authorized​ ​representatives;​ ​and
(e)​ ​Other​ ​causes​ ​analogous​ ​to​ ​the​ ​foregoing

Section​ ​7​ ​of​ ​Republic​ ​Act​ ​No.​ ​10022​ ​provides​:

Section 7 Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SEC. 10. Money Claims.– Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor
Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the
complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damage. Consistent with this mandate, the NLRC shall endeavor
to​ ​update​ ​and​ ​keep​ ​abreast​ ​with​ ​the​ ​developments​ ​in​ ​the​ ​global​ ​services​ ​industry.
The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all
claims under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the
contract for overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The
performance bond to de [sic] filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law,
shall be answerable for all money claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the
recruitment/placement agency is a juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and
partners as the case may be, shall themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation
or​ ​partnership​ ​for​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​claims​ ​and​ ​damages.
Such liabilities shall continue during the entire period or duration of the employment contract
and shall not be affected by any substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a
foreign​ ​country​ ​of​ ​the​ ​said​ ​contract.
Any compromise/amicable settlement or voluntary agreement on money claims inclusive of
damages under this section shall be paid within thirty (30) days from approval of the settlement
by​ ​the​ ​appropriate​ ​authority.
In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as
defined by law or contract, or any unauthorized deductions from the migrant worker’s salary, the
worker shall be entitled to the full reimbursement if [sic] his placement fee and the deductions
made with interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired
portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term,
whichever​ ​is​ ​less.
In case of a final and executory judgement against a foreign employer/principal, it shall be
automatically disqualified, without further proceedings, from participating in the Philippine
Overseas Employment Program and from recruiting and hiring Filipino workers until and unless
it​ ​fully​ ​satisfies​ ​the​ ​judgement​ ​award.
Noncompliance with the mandatory periods for resolutions of case providedunder this section
shall​ ​subject​ ​the​ ​responsible​ ​officials​ ​to​ ​any​ ​or​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​following​ ​penalties:
(a) The salary of any such official who fails to render his decision or resolution within the
prescribed​ ​period​ ​shall​ ​be,​ ​or​ ​caused​ ​to​ ​be,​ ​withheld​ ​until​ ​the​ ​said​ ​official​ ​complies​ ​therewith;
(b)​ ​Suspension​ ​for​ ​not​ ​more​ ​than​ ​ninety​ ​(90)​ ​days;​ ​or
(c) Dismissal from the service with disqualification to hold any appointive public office for five (5)
years.
Provided, however,That the penalties herein provided shall be without prejudice to any liability
which any such official may have incured [sic] under other existing laws or rules and regulations
as​ ​a​ ​consequence​ ​of​ ​violating​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​this​ ​paragraph.

Ruling/Ratio:​ ​YES
● The​ ​court​ ​ruled​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​deserves​ ​to​ ​receive​ ​the​ ​three-month
equivalent​ ​salary
● In​ ​the​ ​hierarchy​ ​of​ ​laws,​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​is​ ​the​ ​highest
 ● No​ ​branch​ ​of​ ​the​ ​government​ ​may​ ​exercise​ ​its​ ​powers​ ​inconsistent​ ​with​ ​the
Constitution
● Any​ ​law​ ​that​ ​is​ ​inconsistent​ ​with​ ​it​ ​must​ ​be​ ​declared​ ​null​ ​and​ ​void
● In​ ​Serrano​ ​v​ ​Gallant​ ​Maritime​ ​Services,​ ​Inc.​ ​and​ ​Marlow​ ​Navigation​ ​Co.,​ ​Inc,
court​ ​ruled​ ​that​ ​the​ ​clause​ ​“or​ ​for​ ​three​ ​(3)​ ​months​ ​for​ ​every​ ​year​ ​of​ ​unexpired
term,​ ​whichever​ ​is​ ​less”​ ​is​ ​unconstitutional​ ​for​ ​violating​ ​the​ ​equal​ ​protection
clause​ ​and​ ​substantive​ ​due​ ​process
● The​ ​court​ ​ruled​ ​that​ ​the​ ​clause​ ​“or​ ​for​ ​three​ ​(3)​ ​months​ ​for​ ​every​ ​year​ ​of
unexpired​ ​term,​ ​whichever​ ​is​ ​less”​ ​in​ ​Section​ ​7​ ​of​ ​RA​ ​10022​ ​amending​ ​Section
10​ ​of​ ​RA​ ​8042​ ​is​ ​unconstitutional,​ ​therefore,​ ​null​ ​and​ ​void

Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas Placement Agency is ORDERED to
pay respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of
her employment contract at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this judgment.
Petitioner is also ORDERED to reimburse respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and pay
respondent attorney's fees of NT$300.00 at an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this
judgment.
The clause, "or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared
unconstitutional​ ​and,​ ​therefore,​ ​null​ ​and​ ​void.
SO​ ​ORDERED.